State of Haryana vs Malda

Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—These 13 appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1219 to 1226 and 1688 to 1692 of 1997 filed by the State of Haryana are directed against Award dated 4.1.1997 rendered by the Additional District Judge, Karnal in the petitions preferred by the landowners u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

Vide Haryana Government Notification u/s 4 of 26.12.1986 and subsequent notification u/s 6 of 27.3.1987 respectively of the Act, land of village Pundrak for construction of Pundrak to Budanpur approach road was acquired by the State of Haryana.

The Land Acquisition Collector vide Award dated 6.1.1998 awarded compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 40,052/- per acre for chahi, nehri, nehri-chahi and gairmumkin abadi kind of land, whereas Rs. 30,000/- per acre were awarded as compensation for banjar land and Rs. 20,064 per acre for banjar qadim and gairmumkin kumaharan Dhana and gairmumkin johar land.

Seeking enhancement of compensation the landowners preferred the petitions u/s 18 of the Act which were adjudicated by the reference Court vide the impugned Award and compensation at the following rates had been awarded:-

Although pleas of the appellants-State in all these appeals are the same, for convenience and clarity rest of the facts are taken from RFA No. 1219 of 1997.

Challenging the impugned Award, the appellants have took up a stand that the landowners neither produced aksajra nor any site-plan to enable the Court to fix location of the acquired land so as to ascertain its potentiality. It is averred that the appellants-State had produced sufficient documentary evidence in the nature of aksajra and sale deed so as to determine value of the land as on 14.5.1986 i.e. immediately prior to the date of issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act. It is claimed that since the acquired land was located on both sides of the consolidated holdings and thus was in the shape of separate strips, so it could not have been used for residential or commercial purposes and thus had no potential value.

Praying for acceptance of the appeals, while seeking reversal of the impugned Award, restoration of the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector, was sought.

Since none from the respondents appeared even after service, hearing was provided to the counsel for the appellant-State, while perusing the grounds of appeal, impugned award as also the relevant fact and attending circumstances.

All the 13 references u/s 18 of the Act were consolidated together by the reference Court on 10.1.1996 and case No. 31 of 1995 titled as Smt. Malde and ors. Versus Haryana State and ors. was treated as the main case for recording the proceedings in all the cases.

Rival claims of the parties reflected in their pleadings were sought to be adjudicated by framing issues on 10.1.1996. The said issues are as under:-

What was the market value of the land at the time of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? OPP.

Whether the petitioners received compensation without any objection, if so, to what effect? OPR.

Relief.

While considering oral as also documentary evidence, deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants, market value of the land was affixed at the rate mentioned in para No. 2 of this order. Issue No. 2 was decided against the respondents. Compensation at the market value of the land determined in issue No. 1 was allowed to the landowners with all other statutory benefits as are well detailed in para No. 13 of the impugned award.

Much emphasis by the counsel for the appellant-State has been laid on sale-deed (Ex. R2) of 14.5.1986 pertaining to sale of two bighas of land in khasra No. 360 for Rs. 15,000/-. This land is depicted in site-plan Ex. R1. Co joint reading of site-plan Ex. R1 with sale deed Ex. R2 reveals that the land sold vide sale deed (Ex. R2) is far away from the acquired land. In these circumstances the reference Court was right in ignoring this evidence produced by the appellant-State. No other evidence was led by the appellant-State.

So far as evidence produced by the landowners is concerned, sale deed (Ex. P1) is of 4.1.1985 whereby 12 bighas of land was sold for Rs. 21,000/-.This land was located just adjacent to metalled Kachwa main road. The acquired land is agricultural one and is located far away from the land sold vide sale deed Ex. P1. There is thus no parity.

Yet another instance of sale is depicted in sale deed (Ex. P2) of 7.11.1989 wherein one bigha of land was sold for Rs. 85,000/-. Location of this land was not fixed by way of proving any aksajra of the land so as to ascertain its distance from the acquired land. The reference Court was right in rejecting even these two sale instances produced by the claimants.

In the backdrop of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties having failed to convince the reference Court, it had nothing to fall back upon. It was in these circumstances that the reference Court preferred to take average of the sale instances of small as well as of large pieces of land in a span of three years preceding the acquisition of the land and then determined the market value of the acquired land, which is unassailable.

No fault can be found with the approach of the reference Court; rather it is objective assessment transparently made by the reference Court and thus needs no interference.

Affirming findings of the reference Court rendered on issues No. 1 to 3, the appeals being without any merit are dismissed with costs. Impugned Award is affirmed.